Browse document archive

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description does add one useful behavioral fact beyond them: the listing is scoped to a single folder (non-recursive), but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or permission requirements for the archive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple listing tool. It is arguably over-lean given the 50% schema coverage, but that gap is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a browsing tool in a crowded sibling set, the description lacks the folder-scope mechanics (root vs subfolder behavior, ordering effects) and any routing versus find_documents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: folder_id is documented in the schema ('omit for the archive root'), but 'order' is an undocumented enum whose values 'date' and 'created' are ambiguous without explanation. The description adds no parameter meaning to compensate for that gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (folders and files) and adds scope (one folder of the document archive), which is more precise than the title 'Browse document archive'. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like find_documents or recent_documents, which overlap in intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'in one folder of the document archive' hints that you navigate folder-by-folder rather than search globally, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when find_documents or recent_documents would be preferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.